Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1621

control, N = 811

treatment, N = 811

p-value2

age

160

51.09 ± 12.32 (25 - 74)

51.17 ± 12.19 (25 - 74)

51.01 ± 12.52 (28 - 73)

0.935

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

162

0.849

f

127 (78%)

63 (78%)

64 (79%)

m

35 (22%)

18 (22%)

17 (21%)

occupation

162

0.917

day_training

3 (1.9%)

2 (2.5%)

1 (1.2%)

full_time

20 (12%)

10 (12%)

10 (12%)

homemaker

15 (9.3%)

7 (8.6%)

8 (9.9%)

other

2 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.5%)

part_time

30 (19%)

15 (19%)

15 (19%)

retired

41 (25%)

20 (25%)

21 (26%)

self_employ

7 (4.3%)

4 (4.9%)

3 (3.7%)

student

2 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.5%)

t_and_e

2 (1.2%)

1 (1.2%)

1 (1.2%)

unemploy

40 (25%)

22 (27%)

18 (22%)

marital

162

0.941

cohabitation

1 (0.6%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.2%)

divore

18 (11%)

11 (14%)

7 (8.6%)

in_relationship

4 (2.5%)

2 (2.5%)

2 (2.5%)

married

47 (29%)

23 (28%)

24 (30%)

none

80 (49%)

39 (48%)

41 (51%)

seperation

3 (1.9%)

2 (2.5%)

1 (1.2%)

widow

9 (5.6%)

4 (4.9%)

5 (6.2%)

edu

162

0.195

bachelor

38 (23%)

14 (17%)

24 (30%)

diploma

31 (19%)

21 (26%)

10 (12%)

hd_ad

5 (3.1%)

4 (4.9%)

1 (1.2%)

postgraduate

13 (8.0%)

6 (7.4%)

7 (8.6%)

primary

11 (6.8%)

4 (4.9%)

7 (8.6%)

secondary_1_3

18 (11%)

10 (12%)

8 (9.9%)

secondary_4_5

38 (23%)

19 (23%)

19 (23%)

secondary_6_7

8 (4.9%)

3 (3.7%)

5 (6.2%)

fam_income

162

0.814

10001_12000

6 (3.7%)

2 (2.5%)

4 (4.9%)

12001_14000

8 (4.9%)

4 (4.9%)

4 (4.9%)

14001_16000

8 (4.9%)

3 (3.7%)

5 (6.2%)

16001_18000

4 (2.5%)

2 (2.5%)

2 (2.5%)

18001_20000

8 (4.9%)

6 (7.4%)

2 (2.5%)

20001_above

29 (18%)

16 (20%)

13 (16%)

2001_4000

22 (14%)

13 (16%)

9 (11%)

4001_6000

19 (12%)

7 (8.6%)

12 (15%)

6001_8000

14 (8.6%)

8 (9.9%)

6 (7.4%)

8001_10000

13 (8.0%)

6 (7.4%)

7 (8.6%)

below_2000

31 (19%)

14 (17%)

17 (21%)

medication

162

144 (89%)

72 (89%)

72 (89%)

>0.999

onset_duration

159

15.58 ± 10.47 (0 - 56)

16.02 ± 11.30 (0 - 56)

15.12 ± 9.58 (0 - 35)

0.589

Unknown

3

0

3

onset_age

157

35.71 ± 13.73 (10 - 65)

35.01 ± 12.44 (10 - 61)

36.43 ± 14.97 (14 - 65)

0.519

Unknown

5

2

3

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1621

control, N = 811

treatment, N = 811

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

162

3.19 ± 1.18 (1 - 5)

3.23 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.15 (1 - 5)

0.594

recovery_stage_b

162

17.98 ± 2.73 (8 - 24)

17.96 ± 2.88 (8 - 24)

17.99 ± 2.59 (13 - 24)

0.954

ras_confidence

162

29.99 ± 5.14 (15 - 45)

29.64 ± 4.85 (15 - 40)

30.33 ± 5.42 (18 - 45)

0.394

ras_willingness

162

11.81 ± 2.04 (5 - 15)

11.69 ± 2.06 (5 - 15)

11.94 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)

0.443

ras_goal

162

17.43 ± 3.15 (7 - 25)

17.20 ± 3.06 (7 - 24)

17.67 ± 3.23 (11 - 25)

0.344

ras_reliance

162

13.24 ± 2.95 (5 - 20)

13.01 ± 2.86 (5 - 18)

13.47 ± 3.03 (7 - 20)

0.325

ras_domination

162

9.86 ± 2.36 (3 - 15)

10.06 ± 2.30 (3 - 15)

9.67 ± 2.42 (3 - 15)

0.289

symptom

162

29.67 ± 8.95 (14 - 56)

29.65 ± 9.19 (14 - 55)

29.69 ± 8.77 (15 - 56)

0.979

slof_work

162

22.49 ± 4.77 (10 - 30)

22.74 ± 4.29 (13 - 30)

22.23 ± 5.22 (10 - 30)

0.501

slof_relationship

162

25.33 ± 5.89 (9 - 35)

24.86 ± 5.89 (9 - 35)

25.80 ± 5.88 (11 - 35)

0.312

satisfaction

162

20.59 ± 7.16 (5 - 35)

19.79 ± 6.97 (5 - 33)

21.38 ± 7.29 (5 - 35)

0.157

mhc_emotional

162

10.86 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

10.59 ± 3.73 (3 - 17)

11.14 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.364

mhc_social

162

15.15 ± 5.58 (5 - 30)

14.98 ± 5.65 (5 - 30)

15.33 ± 5.55 (5 - 29)

0.684

mhc_psychological

162

21.93 ± 6.37 (6 - 36)

21.72 ± 6.21 (7 - 36)

22.14 ± 6.55 (6 - 36)

0.676

resilisnce

162

16.54 ± 4.58 (6 - 30)

16.07 ± 4.08 (6 - 24)

17.01 ± 5.02 (6 - 30)

0.193

social_provision

162

13.51 ± 2.91 (5 - 20)

13.11 ± 2.72 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 3.06 (5 - 20)

0.080

els_value_living

162

17.02 ± 3.16 (5 - 25)

16.70 ± 3.00 (6 - 22)

17.35 ± 3.29 (5 - 25)

0.197

els_life_fulfill

162

12.80 ± 3.37 (4 - 20)

12.32 ± 3.29 (5 - 19)

13.27 ± 3.40 (4 - 20)

0.073

els

162

29.82 ± 5.95 (9 - 45)

29.02 ± 5.67 (11 - 39)

30.62 ± 6.16 (9 - 45)

0.089

social_connect

162

26.44 ± 9.28 (8 - 48)

26.79 ± 8.95 (8 - 48)

26.09 ± 9.65 (8 - 48)

0.631

shs_agency

162

14.35 ± 5.13 (3 - 24)

13.81 ± 4.79 (3 - 21)

14.89 ± 5.43 (3 - 24)

0.184

shs_pathway

162

16.08 ± 4.12 (3 - 24)

15.58 ± 4.08 (3 - 24)

16.58 ± 4.13 (4 - 24)

0.123

shs

162

30.43 ± 8.86 (6 - 48)

29.40 ± 8.50 (6 - 45)

31.47 ± 9.14 (7 - 48)

0.137

esteem

162

12.61 ± 1.60 (9 - 20)

12.62 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)

12.60 ± 1.59 (10 - 20)

0.961

mlq_search

162

14.82 ± 3.59 (3 - 21)

14.47 ± 3.59 (4 - 21)

15.17 ± 3.57 (3 - 21)

0.213

mlq_presence

162

13.43 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)

13.17 ± 4.11 (3 - 21)

13.68 ± 4.61 (3 - 21)

0.462

mlq

162

28.25 ± 7.09 (6 - 42)

27.64 ± 6.72 (7 - 40)

28.85 ± 7.42 (6 - 42)

0.279

empower

162

19.28 ± 4.24 (6 - 30)

18.86 ± 4.13 (11 - 30)

19.70 ± 4.33 (6 - 30)

0.208

ismi_resistance

162

14.48 ± 2.57 (5 - 20)

14.46 ± 2.35 (6 - 20)

14.49 ± 2.79 (5 - 20)

0.927

ismi_discrimation

162

11.69 ± 3.05 (5 - 20)

11.88 ± 2.88 (5 - 20)

11.49 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)

0.426

sss_affective

162

10.07 ± 3.53 (3 - 18)

9.99 ± 3.45 (3 - 18)

10.16 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

0.756

sss_behavior

162

9.78 ± 3.67 (3 - 18)

9.84 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)

9.72 ± 3.68 (3 - 18)

0.831

sss_cognitive

162

8.31 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)

8.23 ± 3.62 (3 - 18)

8.38 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

0.799

sss

162

28.16 ± 10.09 (9 - 54)

28.06 ± 9.92 (9 - 54)

28.26 ± 10.33 (9 - 54)

0.901

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.23

0.130

2.98, 3.49

group

control

treatment

-0.099

0.183

-0.458, 0.261

0.591

time_point

1st

2nd

0.126

0.195

-0.257, 0.509

0.520

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.348

0.282

-0.205, 0.901

0.220

Pseudo R square

0.018

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.0

0.312

17.4, 18.6

group

control

treatment

0.025

0.441

-0.840, 0.889

0.955

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.284

0.422

-1.11, 0.544

0.503

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.806

0.611

-0.392, 2.00

0.190

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.6

0.570

28.5, 30.8

group

control

treatment

0.691

0.806

-0.889, 2.27

0.392

time_point

1st

2nd

1.18

0.591

0.026, 2.34

0.048

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.593

0.857

-1.09, 2.27

0.491

Pseudo R square

0.025

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.226

11.2, 12.1

group

control

treatment

0.247

0.319

-0.378, 0.872

0.440

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.218

0.240

-0.689, 0.253

0.366

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.453

0.348

-0.230, 1.14

0.197

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.353

16.5, 17.9

group

control

treatment

0.469

0.499

-0.510, 1.45

0.349

time_point

1st

2nd

0.273

0.420

-0.550, 1.10

0.518

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.499

0.608

-0.693, 1.69

0.414

Pseudo R square

0.016

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.327

12.4, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.457

0.463

-0.451, 1.36

0.325

time_point

1st

2nd

0.413

0.360

-0.293, 1.12

0.255

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.451

0.522

-0.573, 1.47

0.391

Pseudo R square

0.021

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.1

0.256

9.56, 10.6

group

control

treatment

-0.395

0.362

-1.11, 0.315

0.277

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.103

0.332

-0.753, 0.547

0.757

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.16

0.480

0.223, 2.10

0.017

Pseudo R square

0.022

symptom

(Intercept)

29.7

0.990

27.7, 31.6

group

control

treatment

0.037

1.400

-2.71, 2.78

0.979

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.985

0.877

-2.70, 0.734

0.265

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.727

1.273

-3.22, 1.77

0.569

Pseudo R square

0.005

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.7

0.530

21.7, 23.8

group

control

treatment

-0.506

0.749

-1.97, 0.962

0.500

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.209

0.550

-1.29, 0.870

0.706

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.528

0.798

-1.04, 2.09

0.510

Pseudo R square

0.002

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.9

0.647

23.6, 26.1

group

control

treatment

0.938

0.915

-0.856, 2.73

0.307

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.466

0.689

-1.82, 0.884

0.500

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.682

0.999

-1.28, 2.64

0.497

Pseudo R square

0.011

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.8

0.797

18.2, 21.4

group

control

treatment

1.59

1.127

-0.617, 3.80

0.160

time_point

1st

2nd

0.727

0.777

-0.797, 2.25

0.353

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.713

1.128

-1.50, 2.92

0.529

Pseudo R square

0.021

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.418

9.77, 11.4

group

control

treatment

0.543

0.592

-0.617, 1.70

0.360

time_point

1st

2nd

0.453

0.401

-0.334, 1.24

0.262

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.312

0.582

-1.45, 0.829

0.593

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.0

0.642

13.7, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.358

0.908

-1.42, 2.14

0.694

time_point

1st

2nd

0.820

0.696

-0.545, 2.18

0.242

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.100

1.009

-2.08, 1.88

0.921

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.7

0.727

20.3, 23.1

group

control

treatment

0.420

1.028

-1.59, 2.43

0.683

time_point

1st

2nd

0.971

0.774

-0.545, 2.49

0.213

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.132

1.122

-2.33, 2.07

0.907

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.1

0.499

15.1, 17.1

group

control

treatment

0.938

0.705

-0.444, 2.32

0.185

time_point

1st

2nd

0.658

0.569

-0.457, 1.77

0.251

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.19

0.824

-0.422, 2.81

0.151

Pseudo R square

0.039

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.1

0.322

12.5, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.802

0.455

-0.090, 1.69

0.079

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.478

0.362

-1.19, 0.231

0.190

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.742

0.524

-0.286, 1.77

0.160

Pseudo R square

0.035

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.354

16.0, 17.4

group

control

treatment

0.642

0.500

-0.339, 1.62

0.201

time_point

1st

2nd

0.279

0.380

-0.466, 1.02

0.465

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.220

0.551

-0.860, 1.30

0.691

Pseudo R square

0.015

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.3

0.366

11.6, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.951

0.517

-0.063, 1.96

0.068

time_point

1st

2nd

0.491

0.349

-0.192, 1.17

0.163

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.108

0.506

-1.10, 0.883

0.831

Pseudo R square

0.022

els

(Intercept)

29.0

0.660

27.7, 30.3

group

control

treatment

1.59

0.934

-0.237, 3.42

0.090

time_point

1st

2nd

0.806

0.604

-0.379, 1.99

0.186

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.007

0.877

-1.71, 1.73

0.994

Pseudo R square

0.021

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.8

1.042

24.7, 28.8

group

control

treatment

-0.704

1.474

-3.59, 2.18

0.634

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.010

0.973

-1.92, 1.90

0.992

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.74

1.411

-5.51, 0.024

0.055

Pseudo R square

0.016

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.565

12.7, 14.9

group

control

treatment

1.07

0.799

-0.492, 2.64

0.181

time_point

1st

2nd

0.188

0.524

-0.839, 1.21

0.721

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.647

0.760

-0.842, 2.14

0.397

Pseudo R square

0.018

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.6

0.447

14.7, 16.5

group

control

treatment

1.00

0.632

-0.239, 2.24

0.115

time_point

1st

2nd

0.502

0.428

-0.336, 1.34

0.244

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.237

0.621

-1.45, 0.979

0.703

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs

(Intercept)

29.4

0.966

27.5, 31.3

group

control

treatment

2.07

1.366

-0.602, 4.75

0.131

time_point

1st

2nd

0.683

0.877

-1.04, 2.40

0.438

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.392

1.272

-2.10, 2.89

0.759

Pseudo R square

0.018

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.167

12.3, 12.9

group

control

treatment

-0.012

0.236

-0.474, 0.450

0.958

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.076

0.264

-0.594, 0.442

0.775

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.180

0.382

-0.568, 0.929

0.637

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.5

0.394

13.7, 15.2

group

control

treatment

0.704

0.558

-0.390, 1.80

0.209

time_point

1st

2nd

0.714

0.461

-0.189, 1.62

0.125

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.778

0.667

-2.09, 0.530

0.247

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.478

12.2, 14.1

group

control

treatment

0.506

0.676

-0.819, 1.83

0.455

time_point

1st

2nd

0.642

0.502

-0.341, 1.62

0.204

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.101

0.727

-1.53, 1.32

0.890

Pseudo R square

0.007

mlq

(Intercept)

27.6

0.784

26.1, 29.2

group

control

treatment

1.21

1.109

-0.964, 3.38

0.277

time_point

1st

2nd

1.34

0.839

-0.305, 2.98

0.114

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.850

1.216

-3.23, 1.53

0.486

Pseudo R square

0.009

empower

(Intercept)

18.9

0.468

17.9, 19.8

group

control

treatment

0.840

0.662

-0.457, 2.14

0.206

time_point

1st

2nd

0.917

0.474

-0.012, 1.85

0.056

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.09

0.687

-2.44, 0.255

0.116

Pseudo R square

0.009

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.5

0.279

13.9, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.037

0.394

-0.736, 0.810

0.925

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.025

0.352

-0.715, 0.665

0.943

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.697

0.510

-0.303, 1.70

0.175

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.9

0.348

11.2, 12.6

group

control

treatment

-0.383

0.492

-1.35, 0.581

0.437

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.152

0.440

-1.02, 0.710

0.730

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.482

0.637

-1.73, 0.767

0.451

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_affective

(Intercept)

9.99

0.392

9.22, 10.8

group

control

treatment

0.173

0.554

-0.914, 1.26

0.756

time_point

1st

2nd

0.036

0.398

-0.745, 0.816

0.929

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.21

0.577

-2.34, -0.075

0.040

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.84

0.405

9.05, 10.6

group

control

treatment

-0.123

0.572

-1.25, 0.999

0.829

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.177

0.405

-0.970, 0.617

0.664

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.531

0.587

-1.68, 0.620

0.368

Pseudo R square

0.006

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.23

0.404

7.44, 9.03

group

control

treatment

0.148

0.571

-0.972, 1.27

0.796

time_point

1st

2nd

0.074

0.443

-0.793, 0.942

0.867

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.05

0.642

-2.30, 0.212

0.107

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss

(Intercept)

28.1

1.114

25.9, 30.2

group

control

treatment

0.198

1.575

-2.89, 3.28

0.900

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.165

1.039

-2.20, 1.87

0.874

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.54

1.508

-5.49, 0.417

0.096

Pseudo R square

0.008

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.23 (95% CI [2.98, 3.49], t(232) = 24.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.26], t(232) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.51], t(232) = 0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.90], t(232) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.77])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.96 (95% CI [17.35, 18.57], t(232) = 57.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.89], t(232) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 8.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.54], t(232) = -0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.00], t(232) = 1.32, p = 0.187; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.64 (95% CI [28.52, 30.76], t(232) = 51.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.27], t(232) = 0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [0.03, 2.34], t(232) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [5.08e-03, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.09, 2.27], t(232) = 0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.69 (95% CI [11.25, 12.13], t(232) = 51.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.87], t(232) = 0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.25], t(232) = -0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.14], t(232) = 1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.20 (95% CI [16.51, 17.89], t(232) = 48.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.45], t(232) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.10], t(232) = 0.65, p = 0.516; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.69], t(232) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.01 (95% CI [12.37, 13.65], t(232) = 39.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.36], t(232) = 0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.12], t(232) = 1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.47], t(232) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.06 (95% CI [9.56, 10.56], t(232) = 39.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.32], t(232) = -1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.55], t(232) = -0.31, p = 0.756; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [0.22, 2.10], t(232) = 2.42, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.10, 0.92])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.65 (95% CI [27.71, 31.60], t(232) = 29.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-2.71, 2.78], t(232) = 0.03, p = 0.979; Std. beta = 4.06e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-2.70, 0.73], t(232) = -1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-3.22, 1.77], t(232) = -0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.74 (95% CI [21.70, 23.78], t(232) = 42.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.96], t(232) = -0.68, p = 0.499; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.87], t(232) = -0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.09], t(232) = 0.66, p = 0.508; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.86 (95% CI [23.60, 26.13], t(232) = 38.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.86, 2.73], t(232) = 1.02, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.88], t(232) = -0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.28, 2.64], t(232) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.79 (95% CI [18.23, 21.35], t(232) = 24.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-0.62, 3.80], t(232) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.25], t(232) = 0.93, p = 0.350; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.92], t(232) = 0.63, p = 0.527; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.59 (95% CI [9.77, 11.41], t(232) = 25.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.70], t(232) = 0.92, p = 0.359; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.24], t(232) = 1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.83], t(232) = -0.54, p = 0.592; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.98 (95% CI [13.72, 16.23], t(232) = 23.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.14], t(232) = 0.39, p = 0.693; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.18], t(232) = 1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.08, 1.88], t(232) = -0.10, p = 0.921; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.72 (95% CI [20.29, 23.14], t(232) = 29.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.59, 2.43], t(232) = 0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.49], t(232) = 1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-2.33, 2.07], t(232) = -0.12, p = 0.907; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.07 (95% CI [15.10, 17.05], t(232) = 32.24, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.44, 2.32], t(232) = 1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.77], t(232) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.81], t(232) = 1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.48, 13.74], t(232) = 40.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.69], t(232) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.23], t(232) = -1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.77], t(232) = 1.42, p = 0.157; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.70 (95% CI [16.01, 17.40], t(232) = 47.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.62], t(232) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.02], t(232) = 0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.30], t(232) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.32 (95% CI [11.60, 13.04], t(232) = 33.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.96], t(232) = 1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.17], t(232) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.88], t(232) = -0.21, p = 0.830; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.02 (95% CI [27.73, 30.32], t(232) = 43.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-0.24, 3.42], t(232) = 1.71, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.99], t(232) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.67e-03, 95% CI [-1.71, 1.73], t(232) = 7.60e-03, p = 0.994; Std. beta = 1.12e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.79 (95% CI [24.75, 28.83], t(232) = 25.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-3.59, 2.18], t(232) = -0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.92, 1.90], t(232) = -0.01, p = 0.992; Std. beta = -1.08e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.74, 95% CI [-5.51, 0.02], t(232) = -1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.56e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.81 (95% CI [12.71, 14.92], t(232) = 24.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 2.64], t(232) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.21], t(232) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.14], t(232) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.58 (95% CI [14.70, 16.46], t(232) = 34.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.24], t(232) = 1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.34], t(232) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.98], t(232) = -0.38, p = 0.702; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.40 (95% CI [27.50, 31.29], t(232) = 30.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.07, 95% CI [-0.60, 4.75], t(232) = 1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.40], t(232) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-2.10, 2.89], t(232) = 0.31, p = 0.758; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.23) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.62 (95% CI [12.29, 12.94], t(232) = 75.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.45], t(232) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -8.30e-03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.44], t(232) = -0.29, p = 0.774; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.93], t(232) = 0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.53e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.47 (95% CI [13.70, 15.24], t(232) = 36.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.80], t(232) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.62], t(232) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-2.09, 0.53], t(232) = -1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.24, 14.11], t(232) = 27.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.83], t(232) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.62], t(232) = 1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.53, 1.32], t(232) = -0.14, p = 0.889; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.64 (95% CI [26.11, 29.18], t(232) = 35.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-0.96, 3.38], t(232) = 1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.31, 2.98], t(232) = 1.60, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-3.23, 1.53], t(232) = -0.70, p = 0.484; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [17.95, 19.78], t(232) = 40.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.46, 2.14], t(232) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.01, 1.85], t(232) = 1.93, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-2.88e-03, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.09, 95% CI [-2.44, 0.26], t(232) = -1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.46 (95% CI [13.91, 15.00], t(232) = 51.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.81], t(232) = 0.09, p = 0.925; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.66], t(232) = -0.07, p = 0.943; Std. beta = -9.97e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.70], t(232) = 1.37, p = 0.172; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.88 (95% CI [11.19, 12.56], t(232) = 34.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.35, 0.58], t(232) = -0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.71], t(232) = -0.35, p = 0.729; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.73, 0.77], t(232) = -0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.99 (95% CI [9.22, 10.76], t(232) = 25.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.26], t(232) = 0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.82], t(232) = 0.09, p = 0.928; Std. beta = 1.00e-02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-2.34, -0.07], t(232) = -2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.84 (95% CI [9.05, 10.63], t(232) = 24.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.00], t(232) = -0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.62], t(232) = -0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.68, 0.62], t(232) = -0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.07e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.23 (95% CI [7.44, 9.03], t(232) = 20.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.97, 1.27], t(232) = 0.26, p = 0.795; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.94], t(232) = 0.17, p = 0.866; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.30, 0.21], t(232) = -1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.06 (95% CI [25.88, 30.24], t(232) = 25.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-2.89, 3.28], t(232) = 0.13, p = 0.900; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.20, 1.87], t(232) = -0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.54, 95% CI [-5.49, 0.42], t(232) = -1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

748.196

758.613

-371.098

742.196

recovery_stage_a

random

6

748.467

769.301

-368.234

736.467

5.728

3

0.126

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,151.161

1,161.578

-572.581

1,145.161

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,154.937

1,175.770

-571.468

1,142.937

2.225

3

0.527

ras_confidence

null

3

1,414.562

1,424.979

-704.281

1,408.562

ras_confidence

random

6

1,407.668

1,428.502

-697.834

1,395.668

12.894

3

0.005

ras_willingness

null

3

967.100

977.516

-480.550

961.100

ras_willingness

random

6

969.978

990.812

-478.989

957.978

3.121

3

0.373

ras_goal

null

3

1,197.038

1,207.455

-595.519

1,191.038

ras_goal

random

6

1,197.979

1,218.813

-592.990

1,185.979

5.059

3

0.168

ras_reliance

null

3

1,153.810

1,164.226

-573.905

1,147.810

ras_reliance

random

6

1,151.815

1,172.649

-569.908

1,139.815

7.995

3

0.046

ras_domination

null

3

1,059.085

1,069.502

-526.543

1,053.085

ras_domination

random

6

1,055.957

1,076.791

-521.978

1,043.957

9.128

3

0.028

symptom

null

3

1,647.038

1,657.455

-820.519

1,641.038

symptom

random

6

1,648.379

1,669.212

-818.189

1,636.379

4.660

3

0.198

slof_work

null

3

1,367.624

1,378.041

-680.812

1,361.624

slof_work

random

6

1,372.898

1,393.732

-680.449

1,360.898

0.726

3

0.867

slof_relationship

null

3

1,467.828

1,478.245

-730.914

1,461.828

slof_relationship

random

6

1,471.649

1,492.482

-729.824

1,459.649

2.179

3

0.536

satisfaction

null

3

1,559.310

1,569.727

-776.655

1,553.310

satisfaction

random

6

1,558.748

1,579.582

-773.374

1,546.748

6.562

3

0.087

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,245.596

1,256.013

-619.798

1,239.596

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,249.546

1,270.379

-618.773

1,237.546

2.050

3

0.562

mhc_social

null

3

1,466.837

1,477.253

-730.418

1,460.837

mhc_social

random

6

1,470.337

1,491.171

-729.169

1,458.337

2.499

3

0.475

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,523.571

1,533.988

-758.786

1,517.571

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,526.766

1,547.600

-757.383

1,514.766

2.805

3

0.423

resilisnce

null

3

1,364.550

1,374.967

-679.275

1,358.550

resilisnce

random

6

1,356.624

1,377.458

-672.312

1,344.624

13.926

3

0.003

social_provision

null

3

1,147.860

1,158.277

-570.930

1,141.860

social_provision

random

6

1,146.390

1,167.224

-567.195

1,134.390

7.470

3

0.058

els_value_living

null

3

1,183.627

1,194.044

-588.814

1,177.627

els_value_living

random

6

1,185.444

1,206.278

-586.722

1,173.444

4.183

3

0.242

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,185.094

1,195.511

-589.547

1,179.094

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,184.681

1,205.515

-586.341

1,172.681

6.412

3

0.093

els

null

3

1,460.526

1,470.943

-727.263

1,454.526

els

random

6

1,460.080

1,480.914

-724.040

1,448.080

6.446

3

0.092

social_connect

null

3

1,682.125

1,692.541

-838.062

1,676.125

social_connect

random

6

1,680.048

1,700.882

-834.024

1,668.048

8.077

3

0.044

shs_agency

null

3

1,386.624

1,397.040

-690.312

1,380.624

shs_agency

random

6

1,387.681

1,408.515

-687.840

1,375.681

4.943

3

0.176

shs_pathway

null

3

1,278.727

1,289.144

-636.363

1,272.727

shs_pathway

random

6

1,280.670

1,301.504

-634.335

1,268.670

4.056

3

0.255

shs

null

3

1,638.512

1,648.928

-816.256

1,632.512

shs

random

6

1,639.898

1,660.732

-813.949

1,627.898

4.613

3

0.202

esteem

null

3

866.639

877.056

-430.320

860.639

esteem

random

6

872.374

893.208

-430.187

860.374

0.265

3

0.967

mlq_search

null

3

1,245.575

1,255.992

-619.787

1,239.575

mlq_search

random

6

1,248.255

1,269.089

-618.128

1,236.255

3.320

3

0.345

mlq_presence

null

3

1,322.803

1,333.220

-658.401

1,316.803

mlq_presence

random

6

1,325.568

1,346.402

-656.784

1,313.568

3.235

3

0.357

mlq

null

3

1,561.306

1,571.723

-777.653

1,555.306

mlq

random

6

1,563.588

1,584.421

-775.794

1,551.588

3.719

3

0.294

empower

null

3

1,308.884

1,319.301

-651.442

1,302.884

empower

random

6

1,310.251

1,331.085

-649.126

1,298.251

4.633

3

0.201

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,090.932

1,101.349

-542.466

1,084.932

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,093.269

1,114.103

-540.634

1,081.269

3.663

3

0.300

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,195.784

1,206.201

-594.892

1,189.784

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,198.656

1,219.490

-593.328

1,186.656

3.128

3

0.372

sss_affective

null

3

1,228.357

1,238.774

-611.179

1,222.357

sss_affective

random

6

1,226.467

1,247.300

-607.233

1,214.467

7.890

3

0.048

sss_behavior

null

3

1,236.855

1,247.272

-615.427

1,230.855

sss_behavior

random

6

1,239.666

1,260.500

-613.833

1,227.666

3.189

3

0.363

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,249.665

1,260.081

-621.832

1,243.665

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,251.189

1,272.023

-619.595

1,239.189

4.475

3

0.214

sss

null

3

1,711.963

1,722.380

-852.981

1,705.963

sss

random

6

1,711.723

1,732.556

-849.861

1,699.723

6.240

3

0.100

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

81

3.23 ± 1.17

81

3.14 ± 1.17

0.591

0.103

recovery_stage_a

2nd

40

3.36 ± 1.14

-0.132

36

3.61 ± 1.14

-0.494

0.343

-0.260

recovery_stage_b

1st

81

17.96 ± 2.81

81

17.99 ± 2.81

0.955

-0.012

recovery_stage_b

2nd

40

17.68 ± 2.65

0.140

36

18.51 ± 2.64

-0.257

0.172

-0.410

ras_confidence

1st

81

29.64 ± 5.13

81

30.33 ± 5.13

0.392

-0.252

ras_confidence

2nd

40

30.83 ± 4.43

-0.432

36

32.11 ± 4.35

-0.648

0.204

-0.468

ras_willingness

1st

81

11.69 ± 2.03

81

11.94 ± 2.03

0.440

-0.221

ras_willingness

2nd

40

11.47 ± 1.77

0.195

36

12.17 ± 1.74

-0.210

0.083

-0.625

ras_goal

1st

81

17.20 ± 3.18

81

17.67 ± 3.18

0.349

-0.237

ras_goal

2nd

40

17.47 ± 2.87

-0.138

36

18.44 ± 2.84

-0.390

0.141

-0.490

ras_reliance

1st

81

13.01 ± 2.95

81

13.47 ± 2.95

0.325

-0.272

ras_reliance

2nd

40

13.43 ± 2.59

-0.245

36

14.33 ± 2.55

-0.513

0.126

-0.539

ras_domination

1st

81

10.06 ± 2.31

81

9.67 ± 2.31

0.277

0.250

ras_domination

2nd

40

9.96 ± 2.14

0.065

36

10.73 ± 2.13

-0.672

0.118

-0.487

symptom

1st

81

29.65 ± 8.91

81

29.69 ± 8.91

0.979

-0.009

symptom

2nd

40

28.67 ± 7.35

0.245

36

27.98 ± 7.18

0.425

0.680

0.171

slof_work

1st

81

22.74 ± 4.77

81

22.23 ± 4.77

0.500

0.198

slof_work

2nd

40

22.53 ± 4.12

0.082

36

22.55 ± 4.05

-0.125

0.982

-0.008

slof_relationship

1st

81

24.86 ± 5.83

81

25.80 ± 5.83

0.307

-0.293

slof_relationship

2nd

40

24.40 ± 5.07

0.145

36

26.02 ± 4.99

-0.067

0.162

-0.505

satisfaction

1st

81

19.79 ± 7.18

81

21.38 ± 7.18

0.160

-0.443

satisfaction

2nd

40

20.52 ± 6.08

-0.202

36

22.82 ± 5.96

-0.401

0.097

-0.642

mhc_emotional

1st

81

10.59 ± 3.77

81

11.14 ± 3.77

0.360

-0.293

mhc_emotional

2nd

40

11.05 ± 3.18

-0.244

36

11.28 ± 3.11

-0.076

0.749

-0.125

mhc_social

1st

81

14.98 ± 5.78

81

15.33 ± 5.78

0.694

-0.110

mhc_social

2nd

40

15.79 ± 5.06

-0.252

36

16.05 ± 4.98

-0.222

0.823

-0.079

mhc_psychological

1st

81

21.72 ± 6.54

81

22.14 ± 6.54

0.683

-0.117

mhc_psychological

2nd

40

22.69 ± 5.69

-0.270

36

22.98 ± 5.60

-0.233

0.824

-0.080

resilisnce

1st

81

16.07 ± 4.49

81

17.01 ± 4.49

0.185

-0.352

resilisnce

2nd

40

16.73 ± 3.99

-0.247

36

18.86 ± 3.94

-0.694

0.020

-0.800

social_provision

1st

81

13.11 ± 2.90

81

13.91 ± 2.90

0.079

-0.474

social_provision

2nd

40

12.63 ± 2.57

0.283

36

14.18 ± 2.53

-0.156

0.009

-0.913

els_value_living

1st

81

16.70 ± 3.18

81

17.35 ± 3.18

0.201

-0.363

els_value_living

2nd

40

16.98 ± 2.78

-0.158

36

17.84 ± 2.74

-0.282

0.175

-0.487

els_life_fulfill

1st

81

12.32 ± 3.29

81

13.27 ± 3.29

0.068

-0.591

els_life_fulfill

2nd

40

12.81 ± 2.77

-0.305

36

13.65 ± 2.72

-0.238

0.182

-0.524

els

1st

81

29.02 ± 5.94

81

30.62 ± 5.94

0.090

-0.573

els

2nd

40

29.83 ± 4.95

-0.290

36

31.43 ± 4.84

-0.292

0.156

-0.575

social_connect

1st

81

26.79 ± 9.38

81

26.09 ± 9.38

0.634

0.157

social_connect

2nd

40

26.78 ± 7.85

0.002

36

23.34 ± 7.68

0.614

0.055

0.769

shs_agency

1st

81

13.81 ± 5.08

81

14.89 ± 5.08

0.181

-0.445

shs_agency

2nd

40

14.00 ± 4.25

-0.078

36

15.72 ± 4.16

-0.346

0.076

-0.713

shs_pathway

1st

81

15.58 ± 4.02

81

16.58 ± 4.02

0.115

-0.506

shs_pathway

2nd

40

16.08 ± 3.39

-0.254

36

16.85 ± 3.32

-0.134

0.323

-0.386

shs

1st

81

29.40 ± 8.69

81

31.47 ± 8.69

0.131

-0.514

shs

2nd

40

30.08 ± 7.22

-0.169

36

32.54 ± 7.06

-0.267

0.134

-0.612

esteem

1st

81

12.62 ± 1.50

81

12.60 ± 1.50

0.958

0.009

esteem

2nd

40

12.54 ± 1.49

0.058

36

12.71 ± 1.49

-0.079

0.624

-0.128

mlq_search

1st

81

14.47 ± 3.55

81

15.17 ± 3.55

0.209

-0.325

mlq_search

2nd

40

15.18 ± 3.18

-0.330

36

15.11 ± 3.15

0.030

0.919

0.034

mlq_presence

1st

81

13.17 ± 4.30

81

13.68 ± 4.30

0.455

-0.217

mlq_presence

2nd

40

13.81 ± 3.73

-0.275

36

14.22 ± 3.67

-0.232

0.634

-0.174

mlq

1st

81

27.64 ± 7.06

81

28.85 ± 7.06

0.277

-0.310

mlq

2nd

40

28.98 ± 6.15

-0.343

36

29.34 ± 6.05

-0.125

0.798

-0.092

empower

1st

81

18.86 ± 4.21

81

19.70 ± 4.21

0.206

-0.382

empower

2nd

40

19.78 ± 3.61

-0.417

36

19.53 ± 3.54

0.080

0.760

0.115

ismi_resistance

1st

81

14.46 ± 2.51

81

14.49 ± 2.51

0.925

-0.022

ismi_resistance

2nd

40

14.43 ± 2.31

0.015

36

15.17 ± 2.29

-0.402

0.167

-0.439

ismi_discrimation

1st

81

11.88 ± 3.13

81

11.49 ± 3.13

0.437

0.183

ismi_discrimation

2nd

40

11.72 ± 2.89

0.073

36

10.86 ± 2.86

0.304

0.191

0.414

sss_affective

1st

81

9.99 ± 3.53

81

10.16 ± 3.53

0.756

-0.094

sss_affective

2nd

40

10.02 ± 3.03

-0.019

36

8.99 ± 2.97

0.634

0.135

0.560

sss_behavior

1st

81

9.84 ± 3.64

81

9.72 ± 3.64

0.829

0.066

sss_behavior

2nd

40

9.66 ± 3.11

0.094

36

9.01 ± 3.05

0.377

0.356

0.349

sss_cognitive

1st

81

8.23 ± 3.64

81

8.38 ± 3.64

0.796

-0.072

sss_cognitive

2nd

40

8.31 ± 3.19

-0.036

36

7.41 ± 3.15

0.470

0.219

0.435

sss

1st

81

28.06 ± 10.02

81

28.26 ± 10.02

0.900

-0.041

sss

2nd

40

27.90 ± 8.39

0.034

36

25.56 ± 8.21

0.564

0.221

0.489

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(219.83) = -0.54, p = 0.591, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.26)

2st

t(228.79) = 0.95, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.77)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(206.47) = 0.06, p = 0.955, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.89)

2st

t(227.08) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.03)

ras_confidence

1st

t(184.03) = 0.86, p = 0.392, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.28)

2st

t(232.90) = 1.27, p = 0.204, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.70 to 3.27)

ras_willingness

1st

t(185.68) = 0.77, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.88)

2st

t(232.28) = 1.74, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.49)

ras_goal

1st

t(193.54) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.45)

2st

t(229.32) = 1.48, p = 0.141, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.26)

ras_reliance

1st

t(187.75) = 0.99, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.37)

2st

t(231.47) = 1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.07)

ras_domination

1st

t(201.45) = -1.09, p = 0.277, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.32)

2st

t(227.47) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.73)

symptom

1st

t(176.63) = 0.03, p = 0.979, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.73 to 2.80)

2st

t(233.64) = -0.41, p = 0.680, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.98 to 2.60)

slof_work

1st

t(184.18) = -0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.97)

2st

t(232.84) = 0.02, p = 0.982, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.83 to 1.87)

slof_relationship

1st

t(185.61) = 1.02, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.87 to 2.74)

2st

t(232.31) = 1.40, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.66 to 3.90)

satisfaction

1st

t(180.78) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.63 to 3.82)

2st

t(233.81) = 1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.42 to 5.03)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(179.96) = 0.92, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.71)

2st

t(233.94) = 0.32, p = 0.749, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.19 to 1.65)

mhc_social

1st

t(186.79) = 0.39, p = 0.694, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.15)

2st

t(231.85) = 0.22, p = 0.823, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.01 to 2.53)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(185.61) = 0.41, p = 0.683, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.61 to 2.45)

2st

t(232.31) = 0.22, p = 0.824, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.27 to 2.84)

resilisnce

1st

t(190.29) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.33)

2st

t(230.47) = 2.34, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (0.34 to 3.93)

social_provision

1st

t(189.23) = 1.76, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.70)

2st

t(230.88) = 2.64, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.39 to 2.70)

els_value_living

1st

t(186.19) = 1.28, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.63)

2st

t(232.08) = 1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.11)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(179.68) = 1.84, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.97)

2st

t(233.96) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.08)

els

1st

t(177.94) = 1.71, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.43)

2st

t(233.94) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.61 to 3.81)

social_connect

1st

t(178.76) = -0.48, p = 0.634, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.61 to 2.20)

2st

t(234.00) = -1.93, p = 0.055, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-6.96 to 0.07)

shs_agency

1st

t(178.47) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.65)

2st

t(233.99) = 1.78, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.18 to 3.62)

shs_pathway

1st

t(179.90) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.25)

2st

t(233.94) = 0.99, p = 0.323, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.28)

shs

1st

t(177.60) = 1.52, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.62 to 4.77)

2st

t(233.89) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.76 to 5.70)

esteem

1st

t(226.72) = -0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.45)

2st

t(230.95) = 0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.84)

mlq_search

1st

t(192.10) = 1.26, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.80)

2st

t(229.81) = -0.10, p = 0.919, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.36)

mlq_presence

1st

t(184.71) = 0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.84)

2st

t(232.65) = 0.48, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.27 to 2.08)

mlq

1st

t(185.90) = 1.09, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.98 to 3.40)

2st

t(232.20) = 0.26, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.40 to 3.12)

empower

1st

t(182.73) = 1.27, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.47 to 2.14)

2st

t(233.33) = -0.31, p = 0.760, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.87 to 1.37)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(198.98) = 0.09, p = 0.925, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.81)

2st

t(227.88) = 1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.78)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(199.22) = -0.78, p = 0.437, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.59)

2st

t(227.83) = -1.31, p = 0.191, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-2.17 to 0.44)

sss_affective

1st

t(182.90) = 0.31, p = 0.756, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.27)

2st

t(233.27) = -1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-2.39 to 0.32)

sss_behavior

1st

t(182.07) = -0.22, p = 0.829, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.01)

2st

t(233.51) = -0.92, p = 0.356, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.74)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(187.47) = 0.26, p = 0.796, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.98 to 1.28)

2st

t(231.58) = -1.23, p = 0.219, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.33 to 0.54)

sss

1st

t(178.74) = 0.13, p = 0.900, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.91 to 3.31)

2st

t(234.00) = -1.23, p = 0.221, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-6.09 to 1.41)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(116.52) = 2.31, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.07 to 0.88)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(104.08) = 1.18, p = 0.485, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.40)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(88.17) = 2.86, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.54 to 3.01)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(89.23) = 0.93, p = 0.713, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.74)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(94.45) = 1.75, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.65)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(90.57) = 2.28, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.62)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(100.16) = 3.04, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.37 to 1.75)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(83.60) = -1.85, p = 0.135, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.55 to 0.13)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(88.27) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.47)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(89.18) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.66)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(86.14) = 1.76, p = 0.164, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.19 to 3.07)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(85.63) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.98)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(89.94) = 0.98, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.18)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(89.18) = 1.03, p = 0.611, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.46)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(92.25) = 3.09, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.66 to 3.04)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(91.54) = 0.69, p = 0.980, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.02)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(89.56) = 1.25, p = 0.431, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.29)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(85.46) = 1.04, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.11)

els

1st vs 2st

t(84.39) = 1.28, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.08)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(84.89) = -2.69, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-4.79 to -0.71)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(84.72) = 1.51, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.93)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(85.59) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.16)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(84.18) = 1.16, p = 0.495, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.91)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(125.22) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.65)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(93.47) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.90)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(88.60) = 1.02, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.59)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(89.37) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.27 to 2.24)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(87.35) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.82)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(98.32) = 1.81, p = 0.146, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.41)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(98.50) = -1.37, p = 0.347, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.28)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(87.46) = -2.79, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.00 to -0.34)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(86.94) = -1.66, p = 0.201, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.14)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(90.38) = -2.08, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.90 to -0.05)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(84.88) = -2.47, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.88 to -0.53)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(111.90) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.51)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(100.93) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.13 to 0.56)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(86.79) = 2.00, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.36)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(87.73) = -0.91, p = 0.735, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.26)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(92.39) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.11)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(88.93) = 1.14, p = 0.513, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.13)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(97.46) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.56)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(82.69) = -1.12, p = 0.531, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-2.73 to 0.76)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(86.88) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.89)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(87.69) = -0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.91)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(84.96) = 0.93, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.28)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(84.51) = 1.13, p = 0.527, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.25)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(88.37) = 1.17, p = 0.487, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.21)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(87.69) = 1.25, p = 0.428, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.51)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(90.42) = 1.15, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.79)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(89.80) = -1.32, p = 0.382, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.24)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(88.03) = 0.73, p = 0.932, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.04)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(84.36) = 1.41, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.19)

els

1st vs 2st

t(83.40) = 1.33, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.01)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(83.85) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.95 to 1.93)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(83.69) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.23)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(84.47) = 1.17, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.35)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(83.21) = 0.78, p = 0.878, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.43)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(119.58) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.45)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(91.52) = 1.54, p = 0.252, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.63)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(87.17) = 1.28, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.64)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(87.86) = 1.59, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.33 to 3.01)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(86.05) = 1.93, p = 0.114, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.86)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(95.82) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.68)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(95.98) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.72)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(86.15) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.83)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(85.68) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.63)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(88.76) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.81 to 0.96)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(83.84) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.24 to 1.91)

Plot

Clinical significance